these physicians were so called "medicine-men" (as among the heathen), nor to suppose that they used

idolatrous or even superstitious means. The example of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20; 2 Chronicles 32:24)

sufficiently shows, how one who fully trusted in the LORD would have felt and acted in these

circumstances. On the other hand, Asa displayed in this instance the same want of practical religion as in

his alliance with Syria - a state of mind which Bengel rightly characterizes as theoretical orthodoxy combined

with practical atheism. And as formerly the prophet had summed up what Asa had no doubt regarded as the

height of political wisdom in the curt, if somewhat harsh, criticism: "Thou hast acted stupidly over this" (2

Chronicles 16:9) - so might it have been said of him in this matter also. He had not sought Jehovah, but had

sought in the physicians - and by the help which he had sought he must abide. He had not trusted in the

supernatural, but applied to the natural and in the natural course of events his disease ended in death. It

was not wrong to employ means, indeed such were used in the miraculous cure of Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:7),

just as in the miraculous rescue of St. Paul's companions from shipwreck (Acts 27:23, 24, 43, 44). And, if one

lesson more than another has been impressed on our minds in the course of this history, it is that of the use

of natural means, in the ordinary and rational succession of events, for the accomplishment of supernatural

and Divinely -announced purposes. But the error and sin of Asa consisted in seeking an object, however

lawful and even desirable, in, by, and through secondary means, without first seeking Jehovah. Such

conduct carried with it its natural result. For, what a man soweth, that - the very kind of grain - shall he also

reap; just as, none the less, that we work for it (or perhaps have it supplied to our hands), but on the

contrary, all the more because of it, we first pray, "Give us this day our daily bread," and then receive as

directly from His hand the consecrated fruit of our labor.

There was the same sad consistency about Asa's death as in his life. He seems to have built him a special

mausoleum in the city of David; and there they laid him in almost Egyptian pomp on a bed of spices, and

burnt at his burying, whether for the first time in royal funerals, or according to a more ancient practice,272 a

large quantity of costly spices and perfumes.

But in following the narrative of Holy Scripture, we have been really anticipating the course of this history.

For, as previously stated, Asa not only outlived Baasha, but altogether saw eight kings on the throne of

Israel. Baasha seems to have survived his defeat little more than a year. He was succeeded by his son Elah,

in the twenty-sixth year of King Asa's reign. The rule of Elah lasted only two years, or, more exactly, part of

two years. Baasha had set the example of military revolutions, in which the favorite of the soldiery ascended

the throne by the murder of his predecessor, and the extirpation of all who might have rival claims to the

crown. The precedent was a dangerous one; and henceforth the throne of Israel was occupied by a series of

military adventurers, whose line did not extend beyond their immediate successors. The son of Baasha was

a cowardly debauchee, who, forgetful even of the decorum of Eastern princes, indulged in orgies in the

houses of his favorites, while his army was fighting before Gibbethon. He fell a victim to a court conspiracy.

We know only two of the actors in it: Arza, the steward of the king's palace (or rather, his major-domo), in

whose house Elah was drinking himself drunk, and the king's murderer and successor Zimri, who filled the

post of chief over half his "chariots," or perhaps his cavalry. The reign of Zimri lasted only seven days, but

they were stained by even more than the bloodshed usual on such occasions. For Zimri destroyed not only

the family of his predecessor, but killed all the "blood-avengers" (relatives, kinsfolk), and even "the friends"

of the late king.

Whether, as Josephus explains (Ant. 8. 12, 4), Zimri had chosen for his rebellion the moment when all the

leading officers were in camp, or Omri himself was originally in the conspiracy, certain it is that the army was

not disposed to acknowledge the new usurper. It immediately proclaimed their general Omri, and under his

leadership marched back upon Tirzah. Zimri held out until the city was taken, when he retired into "the

citadel of the king's palace,"  273 which he set on fire, perishing in its flames. But Omri had not at first

undisputed possession of the throne.

For four years the people were divided between him and another pretender to the crown, Tibni, the son of

Genath. At length Omri prevailed, and "Tibni died" - either in battle or, as Josephus seems to imply, (Ant. 8.

12, 5), by command of his rival.